If they truly find life in a secular state intolerable, why do they not now return to the Islamic states from which they came rather than demanding that the host country make radical constitutional changes to accommodate them?

Antony Flew1

I went to the Bradford Mela only a few weeks ago before the atrocity and was taken aback to see a little girl carrying a balloon printed with the words “I love Al Axa” - a reference to the Al Axa Martyrs‟ Brigade of Palestinian suicide bombers.

On all the key themes covered in The Enemy Within - multiculturalism, Islamophobia, British values and what makes a jihadi - Sayeeda Warsi reveals herself to be ignorant of English history, which she routinely conflates with British, allows her judgements to be clouded by sentimentality, is inconsistent in her arguments and plays down or ignores the many negative aspects of Islam. Her arguments are frequently self-contradictory and incoherent, and for a person who is supposed to be a lawyer she shows a lamentable grasp of the law. She is also prone to gaffes which one would expect a politician to avoid. Thus, attempting to convince us that Muslims are just like everybody else, she says of Bonfire night "we [Muslims] are as fascinated with explosives as the rest of Britain‟.3 Quite: this would be hilarious in some episode of Goodness Gracious Me with the natives blowing themselves up but you wonder why some copy-editor at Penguin Random House failed to point out to the clueless Warsi that in the circumstances this might not be a very smart thing to say. Taken together, these failings suggest that the sole reason Sayeeda Warsi was appointed to serve as the Tory Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion by David Cameron before the 2010 General Election was that she served the useful propaganda purpose of showcasing the Tory Party as welcoming to racial and religious minorities. Her utterances on radio and television and this book provide no other obvious or plausible reason that could possibly account for why she was plucked from obscurity and promoted.

To begin with, Warsi fails completely to grasp the threat and dangers posed by the cult of multiculturalism to England and thus why it is bitterly resisted by so many. Her own view of Muslims in Britain quite unintentionally portrays the dangers:

"Today, Muslims are often painted as not playing by the rules, as having practices and beliefs which are inconsistent, dare I say, even incompatible, with being British. They are painted as intrinsically violent, irreconcilably aggressive, and intent on taking over this green and pleasant land."4

Other objections to Muslims being in Britain in very large numbers can be cited (see below) but the picture of Muslims in Britain against which Warsi rails is all too accurate. The title of this book underlines the threat: A Tale of Muslims in Britain is one thing; a Tale of Muslim Britain is quite another, either a false picture of what actually and currently exists or a reflection of Warsi‟s hope for the future when Britain is dominated by Muslims. In fact, if immigration continues at the present level (more on which below), in fifty years time the sub title would have to be The End of the English in Britain.

II. The Hate Cult of Multiculturalism: the Racial, Cultural, Psychological and Physical Dispossession of the White Indigenous Population, especially the English

No sooner has she extolled the joys of diversity and the „multicultural melting pot that is today‟s Britain‟5 than she provides us with a classic example of the racial, physical, cultural and psychological dispossession of the white indigenous population in just one part of England:

"Savile Town [Dewsbury, West Yorkshire] is now almost exclusively made up of a community which is of South Asian descent and Muslim by faith, but as a child I grew up in a Savile Town that was much more diverse. It was mixed community, a strong white working class and minority Muslim community which divided into families originating from the Gujarat district of India and families from the Punjab and Kashmir provinces of Pakistan."6

It obviously does not occur to Warsi that she provides clear confirmation that “diversity” is not some process whereby the white indigenous population is enriched, but is, on the contrary, a process whereby the white population is dispossessed. The racial and cultural transformation of an area that was once exclusively inhabited by members of the white indigenous population makes clear the threat posed by multiculturalism to England. What is there here to celebrate? Warsi‟s Savile Town story, recounted with barely concealed gloating, is just one of hundreds of thousands which has been played out throughout England and continues to be played out, leading to the racial, cultural, physical and psychological dispossession of the English. What happened in Savile Town, Dewsbury is the grim reality of multiculturalism. If diversity is a such a wonderful thing, what has happened to the white indigenous population of Dewsbury? Where are they now? Why did they not embrace the aliens?

Warsi says that she told her mother (“mum” as she calls her in her repeated appeals to secure an emotional response from the reader), "that Britain could never be a place which could be so unwelcoming to a community that a whole group of people would feel they had no choice but to leave and set up home elsewhere".7 First, 'elsewhere' does not mean Lake Vostok beneath Antarctica, the outer reaches of the Solar System or a Soviet concentration camp: it means whence this community came and, second, Warsi might like to bear in mind what happened to the white indigenous population of Savile Town in Dewsbury. Something obviously happened to make them feel no longer welcome in their own neighbourhood. Warsi tells us that she desires "a warmth amongst neighbours".8 So, once again, what happened in Savile Town to the whites? Was there any warmth for them as they were being driven out and ethnically cleansed? There was none at all.

Another ploy adopted by Warsi - one also used to justify the presence of blacks in England - is to tell us that: "The Muslims are not new to Britain, nor Britain to them".9 This is totally disingenuous. Previous Muslim encounters involved exceptionally small numbers: "3 million of them and counting", to use Warsi‟s words, represents a totally new order of threat, now and for the future since quantity has a quality of its own. The sub-text is one of Muslim domination, a looking forward to the day when it happens and regret for what Charles Martel achieved. Had Martel not defeated the Muslims near Poitiers, Warsi tells us, "we may well have become the United Islamic Kingdom some 1,300 years ago".10 Who exactly is “we” here? All acknowledgment to Martel for his great victory but he did not, as Warsi claims, save England from Muslim conquest, and Warsi's conflating the English victory over the French at Poitiers in the Hundred Years War merely demonstrates her incompetent grasp of history. The English victory over the French had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.

That King Offa and King John made overtures to Muslim rulers is irrelevant and has no bearing at all on the presence of "3 million and counting" Muslims in Britain today. Overtures from my - sorry Baroness Warsi not your - queen, Elizabeth I, are also irrelevant. These diplomatic moves were part of Europe‟s internal power struggles. If one party could enlist the assistance of Muslims (or anybody else for that matter) to achieve an advantage over a rival then so be it. The best modern example of two bitter enemies doing a deal because it suited them was the Non-Aggression Pact between Hitler and Stalin, and Churchill was quite happy to work with monsters like Stalin to defeat NS-Germany. The following from Warsi is also an irrelevance:

"Elizabethan England became enchanted with all things Islam. With spices, dried fruits and exotic nuts, with fabrics jewellery, carpets and ceramics from Persia and modern-day Morocco and Turkey becoming fashionable must-haves for the well-heeled."11

It is one thing to import goods et al, quite another to allow "3 million and counting" Muslims to enter and settle. Even if Queen Victoria had loyal Muslim subjects they were not in England. Warsi also makes far too much of the fact that various wealthy and bored English eccentrics converted to Islam. The same sort of behaviour - fashionable posturing and infatuation with diversity - is evident today when pop stars go out of their way to adopt some refugee or African child, parading it for the media as if it were some exotic pet. Such individual behaviour, in the past or now, tells us very little about the population as a whole.

Having tried to mislead the reader with claims that Muslims have been in Britain for a long time, she then concedes that this is not the case: "Most British Muslims have been on their British Muslim journey for fewer than fifty years; Christians have been on their British journey for a millennium and a half; the Foreign Office has been around since 1782".12 There was no such concept of British a millennium and a half ago.

Multiculturalism not only leads to the physical replacement of the indigenous population by aliens it also undermines the educational curriculum in all kinds of ways. Standards are lowered and freakish behaviour which should not be tolerated is accepted as a celebration of “diversity”. Warsi herself was a victim of looking the other way and standards not being enforced. For example, she admits that she and her sisters were often taken out of school in Britain to go to back to Pakistan in term time:

"Looking back, it [sic!] now seems surprising that four young girls were allowed out of school for such a long period of time. It affected me academically and has had an impact which even today affects my professional life."13

This, of course, was the very problem - Pakistani parents taking their children back to the Third World for long periods - which was highlighted by that wonderful and decent Bradford headmaster, Ray Honeyford, in an article published in The Salisbury Review ('Education and Race: an Alternative View', 1984). For highlighting parental dereliction and child abuse among Pakistanis Honeyford was more or less hounded out of his post and abandoned by people who should have supported him. Warsi has suffered from the very problem to which Honeyford drew attention. She makes no mention of the shameful and cowardly way in which Ray Honeyford was treated. She would have done herself a favour had she acknowledged, firstly, that Ray Honeyford acted honourably and correctly, and in the best interests of his pupils when he opposed the practice among Pakistanis of taking children out of school for long periods and, secondly, had she apologised for the way her co-religionists and their community behaved towards a very decent man. Today, English education desperately needs headmasters of Ray Honeyford‟s calibre. Warsi makes much of the fact that she apologised to former Mau Mau terrorists for the way these poor little darlings were treated, so I suggest that she issues a suitably worded apology to Ray Honeyford and his family on behalf of her Muslim community. It is long overdue.

What happened to Victoria Climbié is yet another example of what goes hideously wrong when devotion to the cult of multiculturalism is permitted to obstruct sound practice in child welfare. Social workers and police failed to take action even though it was known that the child's parents, members of some weird African sect, were abusing their daughter, ultimately beating the child to death in order, they believed, to exorcise evil spirits. The death of Victoria Climbié was the moment when Trevor Phillips, up until then a fully signed up member of the cult, realised that multiculturalism was a failure.

The despicable and cowardly failure on the part of various local authorities to take action against Pakistani paedophiles offers further evidence of what happens when the cult of multiculturalism gets in the way. Warsi merely refers to The Casey Review: A Review intoOpportunity and Integration (2016) and there is no reference to, or summary of, the earlier report by Casey, Report of Inspection of Rotheram Metropolitan Borough Council (2015).

Warsi's use of language shows that even now she does not grasp the enormity of what these Asian perverts did to white girls in England. Thus she talks of "adults having sex with children".14 It might be called sex in Pakistan and accepted as such: in England, Baroness Warsi, it is rape and the perpetrators understood this all too well from the beginning. As a person who is supposed to be a qualified lawyer Warsi should know that what these disgusting men did was rape, in all senses defined in English law.

Warsi adds nothing to this question when she tells us that there are more white paedophiles than Pakistanis. Given that the white indigenous population is larger - for the time being - than the Muslim population the number of white paedophiles will be larger. A critical difference is that this sort of behaviour is roundly condemned among the indigenous whites whereas among alien Muslims it is prevalent to such a degree that it may be considered to be a cultural norm. Problem number two is that the activities of Pakistani gangs raping underage white girls was known about for a very long time before any action was taken (absolutely clear from the two Casey reports). Had this sort of behaviour been carried out by gangs of white degenerates the police would have cracked down very quickly and very hard. There is little doubt that the police were inhibited by the cult of multiculturalism and the provisions of the anti-white Macpherson Report from taking aggressive action. It can be noted that the Macpherson Report is nowhere mentioned or discussed by Warsi.

Having ignored the persecution of Ray Honeyford, Warsi has, however, no intention of bypassing the Muslim anger aroused by the publication of The Satanic Verses (1988) that "damn book" as she calls it.15 One wonders whether she has actually read the "damn book". Any assertion that there was some kind of double standard concerning blasphemy fails to recognise the anger aroused in some Christian circles by a whole series of films such as TheExorcist (1974), The Antichrist (1974), Carrie (1976), Life of Brian (1979), Monty Python’s Meaning of Life (1983), Footloose (1984), The Name of the Rose (1986), The Boys of St. Vincent (1992), The Magdalene Sisters 2002), Jerry Springer: the Opera (2003-2006) and The Da Vinci Code (2006). In prose, Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard Dawkins, to take just two examples, are not exactly known for their positive views of Christianity. Warsi's claim of a double standard is demonstrably preposterous, amounting to special pleading and a demand for privileged treatment. As for any offence caused by the publication of The Satanic Verses, this was a fundamental free-speech issue and Muslims failed the test, very badly. Book burnings merely suggested an affinity with the Nazi and Soviet states. Indifference is also not a crime: it is not for non-Muslims to care about "the depth and sincerity of belief within Muslim communities‟.16

Indeed, why should we care when Warsi, a former Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, boasts that she bought her husband a T-shirt bearing the words "It‟s a Paki thing and you wouldn't understand".17 Might I humbly suggest that you return to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan where you will be understood. Such wording is insulting and racially offensive to the white indigenous population, the addressee, the “you”, who will not understand. And if this "Paki thing" cannot be understood by the white indigenous population - why should we ever waste our time trying to understand aliens who obviously resent us - how can any form of stable coexistence racial and cultural ever be possible when "Pakis‟ (←Warsi‟s usage) insist that their ways and habits et al cannot be grasped by whites. The element of contempt for, and hatred of, the white indigenous population expressed in such wording is obvious. Blacks wear similar T-shirts with much the same wording in the US.

Warsi‟s response to the 2001 riots also shows that she fails to grasp the threat posed by multiculturalism. This is her explanation:

"Grievance on both sides started to set in. The Muslim community felt they were being excessively targeted and punished, and white, mainly working-class communities, living amongst or on the edge of growing Asian enclaves, felt their way of life was being threatened. This mutual distrust could simply be viewed as the challenge of different races living ever-separate lives in the same towns, but this sense of mistrust entered an altogether more difficult phase as we entered the era of terrorism and the war on terror."18

Warsi does at least acknowledge the matter of race, eschewing the race-is-a-social-and-political-construct lie. However, the essence of the problem has already been set out by Warsi in her recounting the fate of the white population of Dewsbury‟s Savile Town. Two different racial groups can live separate lives but when one group increases its population at the expense of the other the separation breaks down. The way of life of the indigenous white population was indeed under threat by a growing Muslim population. Working class whites were the victims and their plight was ignored by white middle-class diversophiles and when they turned to the BNP and the EDL they are denounced as 'right-wing extremists' by hypocrites who publicly laud the joys of “diversity” but privately avoid it as if it were bubonic plague.

Warsi's early and sole use of indigenous as in 'English indigenous communities'19 - one assumes an egregious politically incorrect error on the part of the copy editor - soon gives way to 'majority communities' and 'minority communities'.20 Such language is intended to undermine the status of the indigenous population turning it into merely - for the time being - a majority community. In other words, all communities are the same. In this context, evasions and weasel words such as 'communities' are a way of denying and undermining the English identity so that in time it can be replaced by an alien community at some stage in the future. The danger, the threat inherent in Warsi‟s use of such language, is clear. When the Muslim minority - "all 3 million of them and counting" - becomes the majority community life for the indigenous English now a minority community will not be the same.

According to Warsi the state multiculturalism project was over by the time the Tories got into office in 2010. Good, let us then make it official and declare that it has been abandoned. For the English multiculturalism has been a disaster which is why Warsi remains so committed to the cult in spite of its failure. She looks forward to the dispossession of the white indigenous population and its being replaced by her co-religionists:

"As familiar norms and practices become less widespread, and the demographics in some of our major cities change, we need to both manage that change and continue to make the case for diversity. This diversity does not have to be at the expense of our traditions."21

So the message from Warsi to the white indigenous population is that whites should be embracing their racial, cultural, psychological and physical dispossession by aliens because there is nothing they can do about it (not true of course). One of the reasons why "familiar norms and practices become less widespread" is because the people for whom these things matter, who are the bearers of the these norms and practices and who pass them on from one generation to another, are being dispossessed and supplanted by alien others especially in our major cities. This is not something to be welcomed: it is invasion and replacement. When she says that this change needs to be managed, she really means that we, the white indigenous population who are being supplanted, should just shut up and permit ourselves to be dispossessed of our country. Contrary to Warsi's evasiveness this process can only be at the expense of the traditions of the white indigenous population. It will assuredly not be at the expense of Warsi‟s traditions since these traditions are not hers. Making the case for diversity is simply propagandising the cult of multiculturalism and making it respectable, to disseminate contempt, even hatred of the white indigenous population and, ideally, getting whites to accept that their racial, physical, cultural and psychological dispossession is inevitable so that they will lose the will to resist their dispossession and replacement. An article, written by a one Tariq Modood, and highlighted by Warsi, tells you all you need to know: "Multiculturalism can foster a new kind of Englishness".22 Well, yes it can: it is called “non-Englishness” or the “geographical area known as England but without the English”.

Warsi‟s intellectual confusion and general lack of competence are once again on display when she tries - and fails - to reconcile notions of “diversity” with “Muslim community”. One of her targets is Charles Moore, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph:

"To suggest that "the Muslims" are some unique group who have a single view was, to me, patronising and displayed a lack of understanding on [Charles] Moore's part".23

The obvious point here is that Muslims are some unique group since they are characterised by a whole series of unique views, beliefs, customs, even clothing which set them apart from the white indigenous and largely Christian or post-Christian and heathen population of England: and Muslims themselves believe that they are unique and special. If this were not the case there would have been no point in Warsi‟s writing this book. Secondly, there is an obvious element of inconsistency and even duplicity in Warsi‟s objections to Moore‟s remarks. Unfazed, Warsi insists that "multiculturalism is the very essence of being able to adopt many identities and combine them in ever creative ways".24 This is inane, sentimental, politically-correct drivel. Given the all-encompassing nature of Islam it is entirely appropriate for members of the indigenous white population to ask Muslims resident in Britain whether they consider themselves to be British or Muslim first. This question is essential, since in the House of Islam there is no lay principle. All aspects of a Muslim‟s life are subject to the theocracy. This is totalitarianism and it aligns Islam with Marxism-Leninism. When it suits her and other Muslims the 'Muslim community' card will be played. Now she tells us that there is no such thing as a „Muslim community‟ just lots of discrete groups. In fact, she goes on to tell us that Muslims in Britain constitute "a super-diverse community of 3 million".25 A group of people that is "super-diverse‟ is not a community, and this is why multiculturalism which promotes super diversity attacks and undermines any real sense of community.

None of this deters her, however, from asserting the existence of a Muslim community when it is expedient:

"I do not believe that any individual community, faith or organisation should determine British foreign policy. I believe that Britain should determine its foreign policy in accordance with our stated principles and values. And yet time and time again we do not appear to be doing so."26

Having told us that British foreign policy is a driver of radicalisation, she then tells us that no "individual community, faith or organisation should determine British foreign policy‟. She then instructs us that our foreign policy must be conducted "in accordance with our stated principles and values‟, since, if we do not, we radicalise, she clearly implies, Muslims. In other words, she withdraws the earlier concession that no "individual community, faith or organisation should determine British foreign policy‟. Since she has earlier told us that the "Muslim community‟ is so diverse that, in effect, it, the Muslim community does not exist there can therefore be no question of our appeasing the "Muslim community" but appeasing the "Muslim community‟ is what she now demands since if we do not we radicalise Muslims (and that naturally is our fault not that of Muslims). British foreign policy can never successfully be implemented when it is predicated on Warsi‟s naive and dangerously sentimental dogoodery.

III. Co-opting, Deconstructing and Subverting British Values

It is on the nature of British values that Warsi most clearly reveals her ignorance of Britain and her animus against our history and our institutions. and my people. Thus:

"In a nutshell as politicians and as a country we have been sectarian, racist, sexist and homophobic, and each time our behaviour has in our view been consistent with our Britishness."27

The fundamental flaw with this assertion, which is intended to lay the ground for the unconditional acceptance of Muslims resident in Britain or to browbeat people into accepting their presence, is that these modern sins are so open-ended and protean that anything that some liberal type does not like can be denounced as racism. For example, the viciously anti-white Macpherson Report, curiously ignored by Warsi, invents all kinds of new and spurious forms of racism. In practice, this means that quite innocent behaviour can be deemed to be racist and exploited by malicious complainants. The definition of a racist incident used in the Macpherson Report (Recommendation 12) is what one would expect to find in the old DDR. Accusing white England of being racist has itself become a form of racist abuse and attack. Likewise, feminist extremists are always claiming to have found new forms of sexist aggression. A new weapon now being deployed against whites in the United States is the sin of “white skin privilege”. The mere fact of your being white is an affront to non-whites, so providing some form of justification, so easily led non-whites believe, for anti-white racism.

Modern inventions of “sexism” and “homophobia” and “hate crime” cannot, historically, have been accepted as part of British values, firstly, because “British” itself is a recent term, and, secondly, because there was no notion of sexism et al. Imputing crimes of “sexism” and “racism” to, say, nineteenth-century England is rewriting history and Warsi clearly has a vested interest in pursuing such an agenda. There are also the long established principles that there can be no crime without a law proscribing it (nullum crimen sine lege) and no punishment without a law (nulla poena sine lege). I thought Warsi was supposed to be a lawyer. When she comes to Magna Carta Warsi reveals a deep sense of resentment, even a hint of hatred. She wants, she says, "to take a deeper look at our history".28 Problem number one is that she is in no position to talk of “our history”. The "3 million and counting" Muslims in Britain are a phenomenon that only goes back to the 1950s (and the fact that there are already "3 million and counting" underlines the scale of the threat to England). Magna Carta is English: it has nothing to do with Scotland, Wales or Ireland, let alone blacks and Muslims. Problem number two for Warsi's sneering and denigrating of Magna Carta is that King John was an English king.

Warsi also misses the real significance of Magna Carta. By insisting on protection from all kinds of arbitrary behaviour for themselves the barons set a precedent that was good for all. She says nothing about the Charter of 1216 or the third version of 1225. There is nothing on the Forest Charters. Once again, Warsi reveals her ignorance of, and hostility to, the Charter when she says that the American Constitution (influenced by Magna Carta) and values "didn‟t prevent the country from electing disgusting views in the form of President Trump".29 The obvious point here is that views are not elected; people are elected. Warsi‟s emotion-driven ranting against the Bill of Rights and all kinds of crimes retrospectively applied by her show the same desire to re-write English history and to attack and to undermine our ancestors (not her ancestors). The rights to free speech enjoyed by people in England are simply in a different league from other parts of the world, though they are under attack from people such as Warsi. Free speech is the right to be blasphemous; and free speech is the right to point out that societies run by blacks are little better than war zones. By declaring her allegiance to the European Convention on Human Rights Warsi declares her allegiance to the despotic, anti-English regime of the EU and all its works.

The following is another good example of Warsi‟s emotional and sentimental incontinence which is such a feature of this book. Consider the following:

"We, Britain, stand proud, chest puffed , when we think Magna Carta; we swell with patriotism at the mention of the Bill of Rights and British values. But having seen what man can do to man, the Holocaust being one of the most extreme examples, we felt it necessary to once again declare the rights of human beings after the Second World War, despite Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights. Importantly, we felt it necessary to once again declare the universality of these rights."30

It can be noted that for all her moaning about “sexism” she writes about what man does to man (global warming is, of course, always man-made). Far more worrying is her appalling ignorance of the main causes of genocide in the twentieth century. The question that she needs to ask herself is why was it that England did not succumb to the totalitarian temptations that swept across Europe after 1917. Warsi's ignorance of the causes that led to the main genocides of the twentieth century is pitiful and she then compounds her ignorance by using the Holocaust as a club with which to mock and sneer at very ancient and rightly admired English institutions. Warsi's attacking Magna Carta shows that she is a multicultural extremist and propagandist and concerning the latter not a very good one either.

Magna Carta is a magnificent document. It forbids the sale of justice and establishes due process, leading on to habeas corpus (← not in her index). It gives us trial by jury, a presumption of innocence pending conviction. No taxation without representation (Article 14) and sets weights and measures standards (Article 35). It is significant that Pope Innocent III objected to Magna Carta. The reason, I suggest, was that Magna Carta set limits to the authority of kings who were supposed to be divinely appointed. A challenge to the authority of King John was thus an implicit threat to the authority of the Pope and the claim that he was also divinely appointed and so a threat to the Catholic Church itself. Here we see another source of grievance that would later erupt in the mid 16th century with Henry VIII‟s break with Rome and in 2016 with the process of our breaking away from the European Union.

"Each generation‟, insists Warsi, "asserts its own "British values‟, based on the society that makes up Britain at the time".31 If each generation asserted its own British values there would very soon be no such thing as British values. British - in essence they are overwhelmingly English values - endure and inspire successive generations because they reveal something inherent and enduring about England (Britain). If British values were constantly being remade there would be nothing inspiring about Richard the Lionheart, Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell, Edward I, Henry V, Sir Isaac Newton, Horatio Nelson, the Duke of Wellington and Waterloo, Rorke‟s Drift, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic and so on and so on. The actions of these people and what motivated them would be incomprehensible. The actions of Henry VIII in asserting the rights of England over papal interference make an obvious link with Brexit. How can Warsi, a Pakistani, possibly apprehend these two historical poles and be moved by them? It is in my blood: I am a Norman bastard.

And so it is with great literature which moves and inspires people across the ages. Attempts in universities to “deconstruct” English history and literature - and Warsi‟s clumsy attempts to do the same to English law - reveal the totalitarian foundations on which multiculturalism, feminism and what is known as anti-racism rest. The other problem is that values which are too inclusive cease to be British values since they just become anyone's values, purchased in some Brotherhood of Man supermarket. English values are English; they are not intended to appeal to others. Others are welcome to adopt them - very wise - but they shall not be permitted to impose their version of English values on England. In other words, English values are, like British national identity, not inclusive: they are exclusive and particularist. English or British values that were open to the world and which could be arbitrarily modified and corrupted by the likes of Warsi as if they were some group-written article on Wikipedia would very soon cease to be English or British values.

Warsi adopts much the same approach when she addresses the matter of British identity:

"A British identity is more than a citizenship, it's a belonging.. It‟s a shared identity around which the descendants of migrants from Africa and Asia, English patriots, Scottish nationalists and "Muslims" of numerous varieties can coalesce.32

A national identity is exclusive: it cannot just be shared with the rest of the world otherwise it ceases to be a national identity. Africans and Muslims cannot be part of this identity and given that the aim of the Scottish Nationalist Party is to leave the UK how is it possible to include Scottish nationalism in the British identity? In fact, it gets worse. According to Warsi "our citizens all carry multiple identities‟.33 This is also intended to undermine the status of the white indigenous population. That she approves of blacks in this country showing support for Black Lives Matter unwittingly emphasises that blacks care more about being black than being British. Yet another reason why multiculturalism cannot work.

British/English values are not remade every generation. The same is true of other countries and peoples. Without a central core of unchanging beliefs Jews would never have survived the two-thousand year Diaspora, its persecutions and humiliations, and the dreadful - and almost totally catastrophic - twentieth century. Israel is the practical realisation of that core set of beliefs. Multiculturalism is thoroughly inconsistent with English values. In fact, multiculturalism is a calculated attempt by resident aliens and white Neo-Marxists to undermine and to destroy the United Kingdom. The same types of ideological fanatics are also at work in the USA and throughout Western Europe.

The Warsi vision of multiculturalism is, like so much in this book, incoherent, sentimental and not thought through. She tells us that multiculturalism "can mean many things to many people".34 If it means many things it is effectively meaningless since it is too open-ended. She tells us that "It's an acceptance of equal value for different cultures".35 If cultures are different how can one, why should one, accord them equal value? The only way in which races and cultures can be assessed is by establishing a set of criteria and then assessing the degree to which these races and cultures conform with the various criteria. In the absence of any agreed criteria there can be no way of establishing whether one culture is of "equal value‟ and thus, according to Warsi‟s demand whether it deserves to be "valued‟. Another danger is her use of "value‟, Earlier she has told us that British values (always the sneering "British values‟ from Warsi) change from one generation to another so the values of multiculturalism which she wishes to impose on the English must also be at risk of being changed and rejected by future generations. Whatever else the decision to leave the hateful and totalitarian EU meant, it amounted to a rejection of the cult of multiculturalism and a demand that the alien immigrant invasion be stopped and reversed.

The spatial and psychological separatism which is one of the striking features of the cult of multiculturalism - observed globally - shows that various cultures cannot be open to all comers. The only people who derive benefits from multiculturalism are aliens and immigrants. Pakistanis in Britain enjoy a standard of living that would be unthinkable in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. That is why they have come here; that is why they stay here; that is why they will not return to the corruption, violence, backwardness, filth and squalor of the Third World; and that is why they - along with others - want to undermine any sense of English identity by the imposition of the cult of multiculturalism. A strong sense of Englishness is a permanent reminder that they, the Pakistani Muslims (and the rest), are aliens.

According to Warsi:

"The British values debate has two major flaws. Firstly, there is a suggestion that "the list‟ of values is exceptionally and exclusively British, and, secondly, our history doesn't always support an adherence to these values.. No one religion, race or nation has a monopoly over good or a responsibility for all that is bad. Progress has been the preserve of most races and religions over time and history. Let‟s not forget that great civilizations around the world thousands of years before we on these shores were introduced to Christianity, what we today profess to base our values on."36

Warsi‟s attempts to undermine the list of British values are themselves flawed. Firstly, she fails to set out what these values are so it is not at all clear what precisely is the target of her sneering and, therefore, it is not possible to counter the accusation that we British do indeed claim that these values are exceptionally and exclusively British. Secondly, Warsi's use of British in this regard is inconsistent with her earlier usage ("British values"). If Muslims are British as she claims and she is attacking the British for claiming that British values - not "British values" - are exceptionally and exclusively British, does her use of British here include or exclude Muslims? I put it to Warsi that some Muslims and other non-whites have come to Britain precisely because they fully accept that what makes so many British values attractive to outsiders and aliens is that they are indeed unique to Britain. If British values were not unique to Britain, Warsi might like to ask herself why she stays in Britain. Why not return to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Warsi also bemoans the absence of any definition of British values. This absence can easily be accounted for: it was not needed since the racial and cultural norms that bound the white indigenous population together were freely accepted not coerced. It has only become necessary to come up with some kind of definition because there are now so many non-white aliens in Britain who hate us and want to recreate what they left behind in Africa and Pakistan.

Institutions and concepts - values do not quite do them justice - which are unique to Britain (England) are:

(i). the Rule of Law, something which Warsi does not fully understand. For example, her ideas on the Rule of Law undermine her earlier remarks about British values and the past. Thus:

"Our laws, British laws, lay out what is acceptable and what isn‟t, and all of us as citizens of this nation are equal before the law and have equal rights of recourse to the law, which is applied equally to all of us.. This is the rule of law, another cited British value."37

That being the case Warsi has no grounds for attacking earlier generations for holding views which she now regards as “sexist” and so on. Further, allowing any jurisdiction on the part of the European Union undermines the Rule of Law. Given that the terrorist attacks in France and here are carried out by Muslims, then they will be singled out. Jews are not murdering people in Paris. Having accused us, the indigenous population, of ignoring various forms of extremism none of which poses the same threat to us as Islamic extremism, she ignores multicultural extremists, feminist extremists and xenophile extremists. If every generation changes its values there can be no Rule of Law since the Rule of Law is based on a body of principles that cannot just be jettisoned and reconstructed every twenty years or so. In circumstances of permanent flux or permanent revolution Dicey‟s great work, Introduction tothe Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885) would be unintelligible (judging by what she has to say on the Rule of Law the book was probably unintelligible to Warsi, assuming she ever knew the location of the library and bothered to read the book). That a law has been passed by a properly constituted body does not mean that it is necessarily consistent with the Rule of Law. Warsi repeatedly fails to grasp this all-important point. Another point of conflict between the Rule of Law and what Warsi believes it to be arises when she tells us that "To fight for justice is Islamic".38 Whether this means justice as interpreted and applied by Islam or justice as interpreted and applied in the jurisdiction of the British courts in accordance with the Rule of Law is not made clear. Further evidence that she does not understand the Rule of Law can be adduced when she cites Christians smuggling "bibles‟ (sic) into communist countries as evidence that this is a violation of the "rule of law‟.39 It is quite clear that she understands the Rule of Law to mean that if some law has been passed it conforms to the Rule of Law: it does not and, in any case, the Rule of Law did not exist in communist states - communist states were under the rule of laws and party decrees - so the matter of its ever being violated does not arise;

(ii). the institution of private property which by its nature asserts individual rights and freedoms protecting them from arbitrary rule. Related to the matter of private property is a high degree of personal freedom in matters economic. Western economies rely on individuals, companies and governments being able to borrow money. These loans are liable for interest. However, lending which requires that interest be paid is condemned and prohibited in Islam as usury (riba). (In its past the Catholic Church also condemned usury). Islam‟s prohibition of usury retards economic activity and represents an unacceptable level of intrusion into the private life of the individual . It is not a matter for theocrats to determine whether it is appropriate for parties to loan or borrow money and to levy or to pay interest. Prohibition of riba was also a factor in the mismanagement of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and its less than glorious demise;

(iii). the institution of free speech, which diversophiles such as Warsi and other adherents to the cult of multiculturalism hate since free speech is an instrument which can be used to expose the inconsistencies, stupidity, mendacity and the virulent racist hatred of whites and their civilizations generated by the cult of multiculturalism. To attack multiculturalism is to be politically incorrect. Warsi insists, however, that Islam can live with criticism:

"Criticism of Islam, as of any other religion, is in Britain a legitimate and legal endeavour. Indeed, Islam itself has a long tradition of questioning, challenging and critique."40

Such criticism is perfectly in order in Britain but Warsi‟s claim is hardly consistent with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and how would a critic of Islam fare in Saudi Arabia or Iran? The enormous gulf separating Islam and the West on free speech is evident in Article 22 of The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam promulgated on 5th August 1990:

"Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah. (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah. (c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith. (d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination."

This is emphatically not a guarantee of free speech or academic freedom (exactly the same fundamental flaw exists in Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan). Moreover, The Cairo Declaration is a declaration of human rights in Islam, that is within the framework of Islam. It amounts to a rejection of human rights as promulgated and interpreted in Western states. The preamble‟s use of "universal" is inconsistent with what is to be understood by the application of such rights as in, for example, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights;

(iv). a respect for individual freedoms (privacy). The notions of “individual” and “privacy” are obstacles to totalitarian (Marxist-Leninist or theocratic) control and supervision. In matters of faith and whether to adhere to Islam or to renounce it Islam offers no comfort to apostates who face death and vigilante violence. See, for example, Political and Legal Statusof Apostates in Islam, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (December 2013) and Laws Criminalizing Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions, May 2014, The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Centre. In the Library of Congress study the treatment of apostates is examined in the following states: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen;

(v). limited government and the recognition that there are areas of a person‟s life which are off limits to governments. Restrictions on the power and reach of the state and its bureaucracies, which is a major difference between England and continental European states, never mind states like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and which has been the source of so much resentment of the EU (“an Englishman's home is his castle”);

(vi). the House of Parliament the most perfect, man-made institution of its kind in the world and which will, I fervently hope, be restored to its former glory now that we are leaving the EU;

(vii). the invention and codification of the world‟s most played and watched sports (fair play).

True, no one race enjoys a monopoly over good, but the achievements of Britain (all of its constituent parts) across all fields of human endeavour are spectacular. Warsi's use of “before we on these shores were introduced to Christianity” is also ingratiating and misleading. “Before we on these shores were introduced to Christianity” has nothing to do with Islam, Muslims or Africans. On my T-shirt the wording is: “It's an Occidental civilization thingy and you lot just don‟t get it”.

In view of Islam‟s less than stellar record on treating women the following from Warsi stands out:

"Our western Christian [sic!] values took far longer to give women the kinds of rights that were enjoyed by women in other parts of the world, other cultures and other religions."41

What rights, pray tell, do women enjoy in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states? This matter is once again in the headlines with the publication of Daring to Drive: A Saudi Woman’sAwakening (2017). The author, Manal al-Sharif, was arrested in Saudi Arabia for the heinous crime of driving a car. The specific charge was "driving while female". It is not actually illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia, so the fact that she was arrested provides a clear illustration that the Rule of Law does not obtain in Saudi Arabia. In an interview on BBC Radio 4 this remarkable woman made an observation on the nature of freedom that would have been readily grasped by the barons who held King John to account: "Freedom is not something that's given; freedom is something that is taken".

Once again appropriating the wholly inappropriate “our” in order to attack Britain, Warsi then tells us that „India, Israel and Sri Lanka had female leaders long before we did, whilst Pakistan and Bangladesh have had female heads of state on multiple occasions..,‟.42 This is the sort of historically inaccurate and sentimental nonsense that one encounters in undergraduate essays. Warsi has obviously not heard of my great warrior queen, Elizabeth I. During her reign there was no unified Indian state, Israel was formed in 1948, Pakistan (1947) was a product of the British withdrawal from India, Bangladesh (1971) came into existence only after the Indian-Pakistan war and Sri Lanka was created in 1972. In any case the number of female rulers is not in itself an index of good governance; counting female rulers is an affirmative action obsession. How many female rulers have there been in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Syria? We are also told that "We in the UK today are lucky that our forefathers have been on that journey to democratic engagement...".43 What do you mean by our forefathers? And if we are "a privileged nation" 44 that is because my - not your - forefathers have forged it: England and her institutions did not fall ready made from the sky; the sons and daughters of England forged them. Muslims played no part at all.

According to Warsi we, the non-Muslims, treat Muslims differently and "[...] the moment we impose a set of rules, laws and demands on one community and not on others we have stepped away from our own supposedly inviolable rules of equality, rule of law and sense of fair play‟.45 Warsi never tells us what exactly are the rules, laws and demands that, according to her are being unfairly imposed on Muslims, but she is quite clear that integration is essential: "The duty to integrate must apply to all of us, all faiths, all races, and must target both religious and cultural separatists and white-flighters".46

Warsi‟s demands are objectionable on a number of counts. Is integration to mean that members of the white indigenous population are to be forced to live among Muslims, to convert to Islam, to marry Muslims, so violating the right of free association? The very wording "duty to integrate" which is to be imposed on the white indigenous majority makes an utter mockery of claims made by Warsi and others that multiculturalism is some wonderful good which we all desire. Judged by their marrying preferences and choice of residence most whites loathe "diversity" and multiculturalism and they do not like Pakistanis moving into their neighbourhoods because, to paraphrase Warsi, "It's a Paki thing and we don‟t like it‟. So whites run away, they engage in white flight, a well established phenomenon in the US and now with us in the UK. Perhaps it is not surprising that Warsi whose Pakistani culture believes in forced marriages and accepts marriages between first cousins as something normal should in all seriousness propose "a duty to integrate", a variation of forced marriage on a huge scale.

It should also be pointed out that "a duty to integrate‟ is not an English or a British value. To make it work would require undreamt of coercion on the part of the state. A great English value, the right to free association, can be summarised as follows: “I want nothing to do with you. Now leave me alone”. If Warsi had her way "duty to integrate‟ would become a "duty to respect‟ since she claims that "mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and belief" is a fundamental British value and those who do not accept that are heading towards extremism.47 Respect has to be earned: it cannot be compelled. I am under no obligation to respect and tolerate behaviour and attitudes - forced marriages and female genital mutilation - I deem to be abhorrent. My right to express disgust and contempt is perfectly reasonable and consistent with my Englishness. If aliens do not like it they are free to return whence they came. Marriage between first cousins is also an abomination, often having disastrous consequences for children born of such a union. Judging from the fact that Warsi married a first cousin she sees such behaviour as an acceptable cultural norm thereby demonstrating that multiculturalism, yet again, promotes behaviour which has no place in England and that for all her talk of integration she really means that Muslims should be allowed to do what they are accustomed to doing in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Warsi‟s acceptance of this behaviour explains why the reader will not find the words “recessive genes” in her book and why she fails to deal with some of the objections raised by, among others, Anne Cryer on marriage between first cousins.

IV. The Warsi View of Terrorism

The whole point of her brief look at terrorism is to convince us that terrorism carried out by Muslims is, in essence, no different from other forms of terrorism. It cannot be the same sort of thing if it is carried out by Muslims and here we see a major difference between other terrorist groups. Russian and Western terrorist groups, such as Narodnaia volia (The People‟s Will), IRA/Sinn Fein, Brigate rosse (Red Brigades), Action Directe, Baader-Meinhof, RoteArmee Fraktion (RAF), Angry Brigade, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), pursued secular goals. Islamic terrorism (war) seeks to impose Islam on non-Muslim populations.

Any manifestation of violence carried out by people who are deemed by Warsi to be hostile to multiculturalism is, as far as Warsi is concerned, evidence of right-wing extremism (she also hints very loudly that if you voted to leave the EU you are on the threshold of extremism). She characterises Pavlo Lapshyn, a Ukrainian national who stabbed to death Mohammed Saleem, as a "far-right terrorist‟.48 Murderer he was but where is the evidence that he was a terrorist? Inspired by Islamic global extremism, the Nigerian murderers of Lee Rigby were clearly terrorists. One can note, too, that Warsi plays down what these degenerates actually did, noting that they merely "stabbed" Rigby.49 Nor is it certain that Thomas Mair who killed Jo Cox, was a terrorist. Warsi makes much of the fact that COBRA was convened after Rigby was murdered but not after the murder carried out by Lapshyn. She attended, she says, a COBRA meeting convened at 0845 on Thursday 23rd June 2013 "within hours of Rigby's murder‟.50 Dates, like law, are not her strong point: Lee Rigby was murdered on the afternoon of Wednesday 22nd May 2013. It may not be significant but the Islamic atrocity attack in Manchester was carried out on the 22nd May 2017. The fact that the government's emergency committee, COBRA, was not convened after Mohammed Salem's killer was caught was because there was no obvious terrorist connection at the time or later.

According to Warsi the term terrorism is widely used, too widely she hints:

"For the media it is shorthand for a wide range of "events", from assassination to bombings, violent targeting of civilians, sabotage, hijacking, sexual violence, arson attacks on laboratories and indeed any violent act, whether it's a sophisticated attack by an organisation with a cause or simply an outburst by a lone individual."51

Warsi herself is also guilty of using the term terrorism as widely as she thinks fit. The Saleem and Cox murders were not acts of terrorism. If, as she claims, the UK definition of terrorism "does not make any allowance for legitimate freedom struggles"52, then she needs to explain in detail what exactly is a "legitimate freedom struggle". Are acts of terrorism carried out by Muslims resident in Britain part of some "legitimate freedom struggle‟? Once again, Warsi‟s all too evident incompetence gets in the way. Having told us that the murders of Cox and Saleem were acts of terrorism, she now tell us that "So whilst the world didn't manage to agree a definition of terrorism it agreed to work together to defeat terrorism".53 So what is her definition of terrorism with regard to these two murders? It can be noted that the attack on a bar frequented by homosexuals is not characterised by Warsi as an act of terrorism. She merely calls the perpetrator a "loon"54, thereby trivialising what he did.

Warsi returns once again to the definition of terrorism:

"Now you may ask: what's in a definition? Isn't arguing about the minutiae of phrasing and a detailed analysis of the words used simply a pastime of under-worked academic? I would argue not, because how broadly we define terrorism determines how widely we cast the net, and against which Brits we can use what are often draconian and punitive laws."55

But casting the net as widely as possible is exactly what Warsi does when she claims that the Saleem and Cox murders were acts of terrorism. Her inconsistent line is once again on display when she tells us, obviously unaware of previous statements, that "there is no single definition of terrorism"56 which seems to suit her since she can criticise the use of the term terrorism for including opposition to the cult of multiculturalism but at the same time argue that Muslims are unfairly dragged in because the net is cast too widely.

Another ploy adopted by Warsi is to tell us that our fears of terrorism are exaggerated: "In the UK you are more likely to die in your bathtub, in a road accident, at the hands of a current or former partner or even from being stung by “hornets, wasps and bees” than in a terrorist attack".57 Such claims are entirely fallacious, irrelevant and should have no bearing on how we react to terrorism. Deaths occurring in bathtubs, wasps or in road accidents - except in the latter example where vehicles are not being used as a weapon - are chance risks which can be compared with the dangers of tsunamis, earthquakes and violent storms. Deaths arising from terrorist attacks are the result of human action, deliberate, planned and calculated. When a person dies from a hornet sting it is not necessary to declare a state of emergency (i.e. “severe” or “critical”) and deploy armed police onto the streets of capital. Nor do people throughout Britain fear for their lives.

The fact of the matter is that the threat posed by Islamic terrorism is unusual and different from other forms of terrorism in three very distinct ways. Firstly, and unlike the terrorism of the groups already noted, it is pursued, if we take the terrorists themselves at face value, for ideo-theocratic reasons. Secondly, the terrorists operate globally, whereas the indigenous European terrorist groups generally operated within a circumscribed area. A third consideration is existential assertion and this is where the connection with Islam may well be irrelevant. By existential assertion I mean acts of violence which are carried out as an assertion of identity, as an act of rebellion against what the perpetrator considers to be a soulless world. Those familiar with the work of Dostoevsky will grasp my meaning. What matters is the manner of fighting, killing and dying. Violence and terrorism can indeed, contrary to Warsi, in certain circumstances be ends in themselves. It seems to me that ideas expressed by Ernst Jünger in his essay, Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis (Combat as an innerExperience, 1922) may reflect to some degree the psychology of Europe‟s urban jihadi:

"Vielleicht opfern wir auch uns für etwas Unwesentliches. Aber unseren Wert kann uns keiner nehmen. Nicht wofür wir kämpfen ist das Wesentliche, sondern wie wir kämpfen. Dem Ziel entgegen, bis wir siegen oder bleiben. Das Kämpfertum, der Einsatz der Person, und sei es für die allerkleinste Idee, wiegt schwerer als alles Grübeln über Gut und Böse (Perhaps we are also sacrificing ourselves for something insignificant but no one can take away our human worth. The essential thing is not for what we fight, but how we fight: towards our goal until we are victorious or until we perish. The ethos of the warrior, the commitment of the person, and be it for the most insignificant idea, counts for far more than all the agonizing over good and evil)".58

The pursuit of excitement as an explanation does help to clarify why some become radicalised. The problem with Warsi‟s objections to Islamic ideology as the motivating force is why these terrorists identify with Islam, selecting Islam as their cause. If it were simply a matter of excitement and violence why have any connection at all with Islam? Why not identify with, say, the misanthropic and totalitarian ideas of the green movement or the Maoism of Sendero Luminoso? It is plausible to conclude, it seems to me, that there is something specific to Islam that nourishes the terrorists among us and who have declared their allegiance to Islam.

Another problem with Warsi's trying to separate extremist acts from Islam by appealing to criminality, gang culture, marginalisation and unemployment is that all of these factors played a role in attracting young men in Weimar Germany to the National-Socialist movement: violence; a sense of mission and belonging; restoration of German national pride and standing in the world. These factors made it possible to understand the appeal of Hitler and the NSDAP but they were not allowed to serve as mitigation for NS crimes. The first resort of some disaffected and unemployed/unemployable Muslim in Britain cannot be to murder people. If he finds life intolerable in Britain he can return whence he came, where he can live, if he desires, in a condition of Islamic purity. The fact that he resorts to terrorism as his first option shows that he is driven by exceptionally virulent racial and religious hatred.

Warsi is hostile to the government‟s counter-terrorism strategy, PREVENT: "Policy-makers failed to understand and acknowledge that British Muslims who are deeply political didn't want to take over or Islamize Britain or impose Sharia law".59 To which the appropriate response is: not for the time being. In responding to the claim that Muslims want to bring about a merger of mosque and state she says that this was not the aim of those who came to Britain in the 1950s. Muslims who came to Britain in the 1950s were too small in number to effect such a merger. Now, as Warsi never ceases to remind us, there are some 3 million Muslims and counting. As a consequence, opportunities which were not possible, even conceivable, in the 1950s now present themselves. As the Muslim population increases, as it has, and as it will continue to do so, this increase will translate into a far more assertive Muslim population accompanied by aggressive demands for policies which would have been unthinkable in the 1950s. Increased numbers dramatically change the dynamics of power and when it becomes possible for leaders of the „Muslim community‟ to make demands for the imposition of, say, Sharia law and much else besides, demands which would not have been remotely possible in the 1950s, those demands will be made. That is the nature of power.

On the link between the PREVENT strategy and free speech Warsi reveals that, firstly, she does not understand the institution of free speech - she has an excuse to be fair, to a Muslim it must seem to be a bizarre English habit - and, secondly, that she has no grasp of the liberal totalitarianism that grips British universities:

"But Prevent steps in to stop freedom of speech when no law is broken. It requires a whole range of professionals to police thought and controversial but legal views on university campuses, by banning speakers, not allowing public buildings to be used for legal gatherings and demanding pre-prepared written speeches to be delivered for censorship before events."60

This betrays either Warsi‟s complete ignorance of what has been standard practice in British universities since at least the 1970s or may be seen as Warsi‟s deliberately ignoring the pervasive censorship enforced in British universities on anything to do with matters of race, multiculturalism, feminism and global warming. Having demonstrated a willingness to tolerate attacks on free speech from a variety of sources, British universities made very clear by the failure to defend free speech that any commitment to free speech, the pursuit of truth and academic freedom was only to be tolerated provided a speaker's or author's views on, say, race were consistent with those held by those who read the Guardian. Pointing out, for example, that mean black IQ was lower than mean white IQ was considered to be a violation of the doctrine of political correctness which now dominated British universities and has done since the mid 1970s. Craven and corrupt university vice chancellors and secretaries who, having tolerated various academics‟ being subjected to attacks and threats by left-wing extremists and who were only too ready to impose the censorship necessary to protect the cult of multiculturalism from severe criticism, and having already shown that they could be easily intimidated by so-called anti-racist fanatics, obviously lacked the backbone to resist government pressure to implement the PREVENT programme.

V. Islamophobia (or according to Warsi “Anti-Muslim Hatred and Sentiment”) and its 7 Deadly Sins, though she lists 8

Warsi begins her case against Islamophobia by citing a line from Antony and Cleopatra (Act I, Scene III): we come to hate what we fear. If we come to hate what we fear, are we justified in fearing Islam?

We are warned about accepting "lazy" stereotypes but all stereotypes are not lazy. To show us the dangers she believes exist she refers to comments made by the author Roald Dahl and Winston Churchill on Jews. The point raised by Dahl is perfectly reasonable: why did Hitler and so many others before him hate Jews? If there is no reason to explain or to account for this hatred then all measures to deal with it are pointless. She then cites an extract from an article by Churchill taken from a secondary source but she provides no bibliographical data. The casual reader is therefore unable to identify this article, read it for himself and make up his own mind whether Warsi has any good grounds for accusing Churchill (and Dahl) of providing, a "respectable” reason to justify hatred of the "other”.61 Churchill‟s article - "Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People"62 - does not do what Warsi claims. She has obviously not read the full article, relying instead on one paragraph from a secondary source (and without providing any page number). Her attempts to impute the claims she makes to Churchill are shameful and represent a gross violation of historical fact. Yet another reason why so much in her book simply cannot be trusted.

Islamophobes, according to Warsi, wear a wide range of camouflage clothing and are highly adaptable:

"These overt Islamophobes - the likes of the BNP, the EDL and Pegida - concern me far less that (sic) the covert ones, the ones who dress up their anti-Muslim bigotry in reasoned intellectual arguments."63

Reasoned argument and the logical application of language do not appear to be one of Warsi's great strengths, something of a severe weakness for a person who is supposed to have worked as a lawyer. What exactly makes “reasoned intellectual arguments” against Muslims bigotry? The counter to bigotry is surely “reasoned intellectual arguments” which Warsi now condemns as an example of bigotry. The practical consequence of Warsi's assertion is that there can be no criticism of Islam and Muslims since any criticism be it from people condemned as bigots by Warsi, without, let it be noted, any reference to what makes "the likes of the BNP, the EDL and Pegida" bigots, or from those presenting "reasoned intellectual arguments" is - can only be - bigotry. This is not just a clear attack on the institution of free speech (unknown in Islam) but denies the principle - audi alteram partem - earlier asserted by Warsi. Another problem arises for Warsi and her book. Is her book to be seen as bigotry accompanied by a janissary bodyguard of “reasoned intellectual arguments” or is it just overt hatred of England?

In fact, Warsi‟s attack on reason and the intellect is prefigured in her introduction:

"Times have changed, “Paki” is no longer the favoured insult for the likes of me; nor do I these days mix in those circles where overt racism is worn as a badge of honour. I‟ve been a positive social mobility story, and so my adversaries are no longer intellectually challenged skinheads but respectable, refined individuals where the insult is couched in reason and the words used are sophisticated, almost poetic. Xenophobia as an ideology is a broad church, with adherents ranging from your drunken street-fighting thug to the chici academic, commentator and, dare I say, even politician."64

No matter what we do to propitiate the aliens among us they will always find ways to be offended since they will always find or invent new manifestations of racism; and will be encouraged to do so.

There is no let up on Warsi‟s assault on reason. There are, Warsi tells us, "many, well-argued, intellectualized reasons for Islamophobia"65 but these "many, well-argued, intellectualised reasons" are not to be taken seriously since they, according to Warsi, "rationalise hate".66 It seems to me that the use of hate here is not always appropriate. Clearly, if you have lost loved ones in an Islamic terrorist atrocity, you will not be benevolently disposed to the perpetrators or the ideas that motivated them. On the other hand, if your encounter with Islam and Muslims arises from contact direct and indirect and non-violent, you have some knowledge of the way Muslims behave (the treatment of Ray Honeyford, the Salman Rushdie affair, the fate of Lee Rigby) and you know what is happening in France and Germany, you might not necessarily start to hate Muslims but you might come close to contempt and scorn. Dismissing "many, well-argued, intellectualised reasons" as hate, firstly, begs the question that these reasons are hate and thus no discussion of them and the premise is required or should be permitted, and, secondly, represents a conscious attempt - though I do not think Warsi realises what she is saying - to discredit the whole process of evaluating evidence. In other words, it is a thinly disguised assault on the very essence of reason and logical arguments. Warsi‟s appeal is not to our intellectual faculty but to our emotions. Intellect, she implies, leads to hate and rejection whereas emotions and feelings lead to acceptance, mutual respect, cohesion and integration and the oleaginous Brotherhood of Man. Warsi‟s rejection of reason means that her earlier grotesquely disingenuous demand - "the debate on multiculturalism needs to be informed, evidence-based, and conducted in language which explains in detail exactly what it is we mean"67 - is thwarted from the very beginning. Again, and for much the same reasons, the second part of PREVENT which "was deterring those who facilitate and encourage others to engage in terrorism by creating an environment where these ideas are subjected to civic challenge and debate‟68, can have no chance of success when all arguments must be framed in terms of what is politically correct, and thus not "evidence-based", and when the likes of Warsi regard reasoned arguments against Islam and Muslims ab ovo as hate.

Having maligned UKIP voters by association and deemed them to be non-violent extremists, Warsi maintains that Muslims are maligned through association:

"This approach of maligning through association seems all the more ridiculous when we look at the unsavoury characters around the world we have in the past and continue to not only talk with, but trade with, fight alongside and consider our friends and allies - “friends” like Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, General Zia, Saddam Hussein and General Sisi to name a few, and of course President Trump with whom the PM walked hand in hand."69

Not for the first time does Warsi's ignorance of history cause her problems. Britain has no permanent friends just permanent interests and if our interests are served by forming alliances with people and regimes whose attitudes to, say, feminism are inconsistent with ours that is irrelevant. It was precisely this sort of emotional, save-the-world intoxication that led to the illegal war in Iraq. Provided there is no existential threat to Britain how Arab states organise their internal affairs is a matter for them. I salute the bravery of Manal al-Sharif. Others in Saudi Arabia need to follow her example. That is how Saudi Arabia will be changed or not as the case may be. During World War II we were quite happy to collaborate with the Soviet state, the pre-eminent exemplar of the twentieth-century's genocidal and totalitarian state. Another critical point is that none of the leaders noted by Warsi ever lived in Britain unlike "the 3 million and counting Muslims". Her inclusion of President Trump - elected fairly, freely and openly - shows a hysterical lack of balance and emotional incontinence.

Warsi now moves to examine what she terms the seven deadly sins of Islamophobia, though she actually lists a total of eight:

(i). The first sin according to Warsi is the claim that Islamophobia does not exist (criticism of Islam is justified and is not Islamophobia). Warsi attempts to counter this by saying that hostility to Islam has increased. She says that "The hatred of Muslims is real and growing".70 Why is this? Are there good grounds for Islamophobia or is this just some irrational, unfathomable, ineffable cosmic phenomenon that appears ex nihilo? Warsi provides no answers;

(ii). The second sin according to Warsi arises from the first alleged sin. Muslims hate us.71 Is there no evidence that Muslims hate us, the white indigenous majority (for the time being) population? Warsi attempts to argue that it was Japanese pilots who invented suicide bombing.72 Suicide missions carried out by Japanese pilots were desperate acts carried out in war, war declared and open. Warsi therefore comes close implicitly to concede that Islam is waging an undeclared war against the West. Japanese pilots were not murderers. A Muslim who enters a music arena and detonates a bomb is a murderer and it is high time that Warsi and others ceased to refer to these benighted, foul creatures as "suicide bombers". Suicide might imply some sympathy. People who blow themselves apart and kill others are murderers regardless whether they leave the bomb and make good their escape or whether they spread parts of their own body all over the place in the process of killing others (and not much sympathy for the "other");

(iii). The third sin according to Warsi is the claim that Islam is "a uniquely violent religion".73 All the evidence at the moment suggests that it is. Are Christians and Jews moving about Europe and killing people? It may well be the case that there is more violence in the Bible than in the Quran but that is irrelevant for what Muslims are now inflicting on the host nations of Europe in the twenty-first century. Muslim behaviour, in fact, demonstrates a level of continuity with the past which is not the case with Christianity. In a lecture, delivered at the University of Regensburg on 12th September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI cited the views of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus on Islam:

"Zeig mir doch, was Mohammed Neues gebracht hat, und da wirst du nur Schlechtes und Inhumanes finden wie dies, daß er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte durch den Schwert zu verbreiten (Just show me anything new that Mohammed has brought, and there one will only find the inferior and inhuman such as he has ordered that the faith he preaches shall be spread by the sword)".74

The Pope was attacked for having included this citation. Had he not wished to cause any perception of being critical of Islam, the Pope could quite easily have summarised the remarks made by Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. That he did not suggests to me that he was making a point not just about Islam in the remote past but also about Islam in the twenty-first century. The Aesopian method was obvious and deliberate: expressions of any regret after the lecture were disingenuous. While in office Warsi met Pope Benedict XVI but she says nothing about whether she complained to him;

(iv). The fourth sin according to Warsi is the view that Muslims fail to condemn acts of terrorism. 75 They do fail to do so in anything like the appropriate terms and any condemnation is perceived as half-hearted, more as tactical ploy to deflect hostility;

(v). The fifth sin according to Warsi is the claim that Muslims condone terrorism.76 She attacks Trevor Phillips for citing a poll that found that 4% of Muslims showed sympathy for suicide bombers. On this basis, 96% do not apparently support such action. She also accepts the view that this undermines "tacit" support for terrorism from Muslims.77 From the fact that 96% do not give explicit support for terrorism it cannot be inferred that some or all of this 96% do not tacitly support terrorism. Such a 96% finding might just mean that they do support suicide-murder bombers but are not telling the pollsters. Hence why their support is tacit;

(vi). The sixth sin leading to Islamophobia according to Warsi arises from immigration and fears about the Islamification of Europe.78 It is far too late in the day for Warsi to talk about controlled immigration. Had a policy of controlled immigration been introduced in the 1970s or, ideally, earlier in the 1950s, the white indigenous population of England would not now harbour thoroughly justified fears about the Islamification of England and then the rest of Britain. The threat is very real and long term poses a deadly threat to the survival of England. Conceding, unusually, that "we must control both our overall population and annual net migration"79, Warsi then approves of the very measures which have led to the alien immigrant invasion of England: "international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and Human Rights".80 There is a clear conflict between these obligations and the survival of England. It is, therefore, absolutely clear what must take priority. No state has an open-ended obligation to accept millions of unemployable (or employable) and inassimilable (or assimilable) alien immigrants or refugees. Any on-going commitment to such obligations is national suicide.

According to the Office for National Statistics the total UK population on 27th March 2011 was 63,182,178 (an increase of 4.1 million when compared with the 2001 Census). Warsi incorrectly cites the total population of the UK as revealed in the 2011 Census. She gives a figure of 53 million.81 Breakdown by countries in 2011 is shown in the table below

UK Population on Census Day 27th March 2011

Country

Population

Number of Households

England

53,012,456

22,063,368

Northern Ireland

1,810,863

703,275

Scotland

5,295,403

2,372,777

Wales

3,063,456

1,302,676

Totals UK

63,182,178

26,442,096

Source: Office for National Statistics

The total UK Muslim population in the 2011 census was 2,786,635. The bulk - 2,660,116 (95.45%) - lived in England representing 5.02% of the population of England (Source: ONS). It can be noted that the total Muslim population in England is greater than the total population of Northern Ireland, exceeding it by 849,253. If the total Muslim population of England relocated to Northern Ireland, the total population of Northern Ireland would rise to 4,470,979 and the Muslim element would be 59.5%. For Scotland this would mean that the Scottish population would rise to 7,955,519 and the Muslim element would be 33.4%. For Wales the population would rise to 5,723,572 and the Muslim element would be 46.5%. Throughout her book Warsi gives a figure of 3 million (and counting) for the number of Muslims in Britain. If accurate, this would mean that from March 2011 to March 2017 the Muslim population has risen by circa 213,365. Another demographic datum to be considered is the number of illegal immigrants (criminals) in the United Kingdom in 2017. Criminals tend not to complete census forms.

Further, if the figure of 3 million Muslims in Britain in 2017 cited by Warsi is accurate - Warsi would have had access to secret government data until her resignation in 2014 - it means that the government is closely and secretly monitoring the growth of the Muslim population (and other immigrants) while publicly claiming that it does not possess the data. The sole reasons for such official deception are, firstly, that it is intended to prevent public scrutiny of immigration and, secondly, the government is actively and covertly pursuing the same policy adopted by the Labour government in 2004 of allowing the uncontrolled and mass entry of aliens into England despite its public claims to being committed to a reduction in numbers. This covert policy is consistent with what is perceived to be a government failure to have brought immigration under control. That the UK is being overwhelmed by alien immigration is indisputable from the latest estimate of the UK population issued by the ONS. At 30th June 2016 the ONS estimates that the total UK population stood at 65, 648,000. There is not a housing crisis in the UK: it is a population crisis of unprecedented proportions.

If the total Muslim population resident in England was concentrated in any one of the other constituent states of the United Kingdom they would be completely and irreversibly transformed. Warsi asserts that Scotland is a more tolerant part of the UK.82 One possible reason is that 95% of the Muslim population of Britain resides in England, and in passing I did not detect much tolerance of England during the 2014 referendum campaign. Might I suggest that Warsi has a chat with Sturgeon about the relocation of all Muslims currently resident in England to Scotland. I am sure that this would in no way affect the tolerance of Scotland which Warsi claims to have detected. Numbers matter and fears about non-white immigration and the long-term consequences are reasonable and fully justified. The threat is especially acute for England. The book's sub-title - "A Tale of Muslim Britain" - is thus very misleading since England is the main part of the UK that is threatened.

Readers of this review essay who in 2017 are still sceptical about what the effects of uncontrolled immigration mean for the United Kingdom in the course of this century are invited to read David Coleman‟s long and detailed analysis: "Projections of Ethnic Minority Populations of the United Kingdom 2006-2056", Population and Development Review, vol 36 (September 2010), pp.441-486. The seriousness of what is at stake for the white indigenous population is clear enough:

History is not sanguine about the capacity of ethnic groups or religions to overcome their differences. The ethnic transformation implicit in current trendswould be a major, un-looked for, and irreversible change in British society, unprecedented for at least a millennium. It would, perhaps, be the most momentous unintended consequence of government activity or inactivity. In a democracy it would be appropriate, at the very least, for the matter now to move to the center (sic) of public debate.83

Warsi herself would do well to read Coleman's analysis since she maintains that "we must tackle the underlying causes of a non-cohesive society, the alienation felt by majority and minority communities and the grievances cited".84 Note that Warsi has no hesitation in designating Muslims as a community, having earlier told us that there was no Muslim community. The most glaringly obvious cause of "a non-cohesive society" is the presence of too many aliens who bring with them far too much difference (otherness) and who by virtue of their sheer numbers are racially, physically, culturally and psychologically displacing the white indigenous population. That is the core of the problem. One obvious and immediate solution is to stop all further immigration making exceptions only for the most talented individuals. Such a selection criterion would reduce the numbers to a mere trickle. Meanwhile all illegal immigrants (criminals) in Britain should be tracked down and deported;

(vii). The seventh sin according to Warsi, though it is listed by her as the sixth (what was the copy editor doing?) is entryism. Entryism has to be taken seriously. I put it to Warsi that the chances of some Muslim in the Royal Navy ever being allowed near anything to do with nuclear weapons on a submarine or any other launch platform are nil and that they will remain so until the operational life span of these weapons is deemed to have expired or nuclear weapons are multilaterally abolished by international treaty. Uncontrolled immigration is also entryism;

(viii). The eighth sin according to Warsi, though it is listed by her as sin number seven, is that we (undefined) hold Muslims to a higher standard "than we would our other fellow Brits".85 The question begged here is whether Muslims in Britain (overwhelmingly in England) are, or should be regarded as, "our other fellow Brits". Question for Warsi: you refer to the likes of me as a "Brit", so you would have no objections then to my referring to the likes of you as a "Paki".

VI. Conclusion

After the first Islamic terrorist atrocity attack on 7th July 2005, a senior police officer, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick, let it be known: "As far as I'm concerned Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together".86 Any senior police officer that uttered such grotesque remarks today would merit instant dismissal on the grounds that he was either demonstrably incompetent and stupid or that he was an enemy sympathiser. Warsi is also in the business of playing down the threat, though, to be fair, she is not in the same class as Paddick. That her book contains no reference to Paddick is an interesting omission. It suggests that Warsi could not bring herself to cite such contemptible remarks because even she recognised that words such as “Islamic” and “terrorist” are not exactly mutually incompatible with one another. The Enemy Within: A Tale of Muslim Britain, almost certainly against the intentions of the author, reveals just how acute is the threat to Britain‟s survival posed by mass immigration per se and the Muslim contingent in particular. Nor is the threat confined to Britain.

One of the more glaring omissions is Warsi's complete failure to comment on, even merely to note, that all the problems associated with Muslims in Britain are also threats of nightmarish proportions for France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Russia and the United States. The failure on the part of Warsi to make this obvious connection can only be deliberate, a form of censorship by omission. What confronts Europe is more closely akin to a pan-European Islamic insurgency or even a war against Europe. For what is happening in Europe read, for example, Pat Buchanan‟s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations andImmigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (2002), Thilo Sarrazin, Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen (Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion: How we are Putting Our Country at Risk, 2010) and, just published, Douglas Murray‟s The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017). A leaked UK government report (restricted) compiled by Home Office Minister, Joan Ryan, Migration from Eastern Europe:Impact on Public Services and Community Cohesion (2017), confirms, yet again, that governments are doing their best to suppress any real discussion of the dangers posed by immigration, legal or illegal, to the UK.

Overall, The Enemy Within is also a thoroughly unconvincing and clumsy attempt by Warsi to play down the immediate and, above all, the long-term threat posed to England (mainly) and United Kingdom (generally) by Islam. The danger arises not just from the fact that there is already a sizeable and disaffected Muslim minority in Britain, overwhelmingly concentrated in England but that this minority is growing: 2.8 million according to the 2011 Census and now in 2017, according to Warsi, "3 million of them and counting". Integration is impossible not merely because the white indigenous population rejects the aliens in their country but also because the aliens have not come to integrate: their aim is not - at this stage - domination of the indigenous population but to consolidate sole control over their own occupation zones. This precludes any chance of integration or social cohesion, since both parties reject them for differing reasons. As the Muslim population increases in the course of the twenty-first century from 3 million through 6 million to 9 million, demands for integration made by the likes of Warsi, obviously insincere to begin with, and intended primarily to allay fears of Muslim domination among the indigenous population, and with no chance of success, will be dropped, since such deception will no longer be needed. For minds superior to Warsi's it is obvious that any talk of Muslim domination at this moment is highly undesirable. Dissimulation and deception based on the established notion of taqiyya thus come into play. Islamic Ketman, examined by Czesław Miłosz in The Captive Mind (1953), is almost certainly related to taqiyya and illustrates the method very well. Such deception in war is hardly unique to Islam. Deceiving the enemy is also fundamental to Sun Tzu‟s The Art ofWar, (c.400-320 B.C) and during the Cold War so-called aktivnye meropriiatiia were an essential part of KGB foreign operations, but the Cold War was at least open and declared, the threat recognised by our politicians (though probably not by Corbyn). Now, they are too frightened to admit the scale of the threat, merely telling us that we will not be divided at the same time as there exists an unbridgeable divide between aliens and the indigenous population.

Readers of this essay may be familiar with the novels of John Wyndham many of which deal with how mankind responds to the possibility of its being exterminated and replaced by aliens. In The Day of the Triffids (1951), the threat comes from deadly plants, in The KrakenWakes (1953), it comes from aliens beneath the sea and in The Midwich Cuckoos (1957) it is alien children. Colonies of these children are born of unwilling host Earth mothers among Australian aborigines, Canadian Eskimos and in Siberia but none survive since they are put to death. The sole remaining colony is in the English village of Midwich and here they are allowed to live unmolested, though unwelcome and separated from the rest of the village (integration was not very popular there either and there was a lack of social cohesion). As the children mature they demonstrate frightening mental powers: if one child learns to play chess, they all do; and they are able within a limited range either individually or collectively to compel humans to do their bidding. The English authorities seek some compromise, some modus vivendi, trying to reassure the alien children that what happened in Russia could never happen in England. One of the alien children brutally sums up the threat they pose to the indigenous English and the threat posed to them, the children, when the sleepy English eventually realize what is at stake:

"This is not a civilised matter', she said, 'it is a very primitive matter. If we exist we shall dominate you - that is clear and inevitable. Will you agree to be superseded, and start on the way to extinction without a struggle? I do not think you are decadent enough for that. And then politically the question is: Can any State, however tolerant, afford to harbour an increasingly powerful minority which it has no power to control? Obviously the answer is again, no."87

Sometime in this century, what is generally and traditionally understood as liberal democracy will be tested to destruction: the process is now well underway. Survival may require that we, the white indigenous population, are compelled to behave in ways that violate these traditions. For very many people this will be an insuperable obstacle to decisive action. That is perfectly understandable. To take action necessary for survival which compels us to violate, for example, the Rule of Law, something of which we are proud, would mean our attacking the very thing we hold dear, in order to protect it. These deep cultural stresses and contradictions have the power to tear us apart and render us vulnerable to people who neither care about nor understand English quirks such as the Rule of Law and free speech. If, however, we do not act, liberal democracy will most certainly be tested to destruction and will fail the test. This destruction will not necessarily occur through violence and open war, though terrorist violence will be omnipresent (and not one-sided). It will be both evolutionary and revolutionary. The increase of an alien population over the decades will itself help to destroy what is understood by liberal democracy. Multiculturalism itself is incompatible with, has declared war on, liberal democracy. Both cannot co-exist or survive on the same political and physical terrain.

Multiculturalism, cohesion and integration, always the sickly fantasies of the deluded, have failed but governments not knowing what do or, as I suspect, unwilling to do what is necessary, will continue as if nothing has happened. That Warsi calls for the formation of a Department of National Identity and Integration speaks for the failure of diversity and multiculturalism. If diversity and multiculturalism were blessings there would no need of some government department to propagandize that what people reject. Diversity is not a blessing: it is a curse. In one last desperate attempt multiculturalism will be rebranded and politicians will redouble their efforts to root out the xenophobes who say nasty things about multiculturalism.

As an adjunct to this final propaganda campaign exceptionally harsh measures will be deployed by government agencies against individuals and organisations now designated as “extremist”. This will be done for two main reasons: firstly, to create the impression among Muslims in Britain that the government is even-handed (individuals who are deeply concerned about the fate of England will automatically be treated as if they are terrorists); and, secondly, to provide a cover for the police and other agencies to prevent the growth of any organised, well directed and armed English insurgency - a matter never raised publicly - but something which is discussed behind closed doors and which deeply alarms the security services, and which they are desperate to prevent. They should be worried. The revolution against England will only be apparent when it has happened and then only to a handful: to those who strove to destroy, and succeeded in destroying, her; and to those who tried and failed to defend her.

So do we do what is necessary in order to survive or do we accept racial, physical, cultural and psychological dispossession and replacement as some immutable law? Warsi's barely concealed hope is that we shall submit without a struggle of any kind and allow ourselves to be finally overrun and dominated. That is the real meaning of The Enemy Within: A Tale ofMuslim Britain.

...Finally, a reminder to Baroness Warsi: please do not forget to issue a suitably worded apology to Ray Honeyford on behalf of your Muslim community.

Endnotes:

Antony Flew, "Islam's War Against the West: Can it Abide a Secular State?", The SalisburyReview, vol 21, № 4, 2003, p.9

Our Newsletter

Email Address *

First Name *

Last Name *

Region *

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.